The vertical launch system in my opinion fits MgT Vehicle Handbook's definition for a fixed mount.

The launcher in the ASROC link and the twin rail launcher shown on the MgT Vehicle Handbook Achilles frigate on p. 92 I'm sure are not fixed mounts, however I'm not sure what mount type to select.

Update:

Nuts, I forgot about the Phalanx part but I remember seeing what I think was a Phalanx on a carrier that was close to the stern and slightly lower than the flight deck. I'll have to look through some of my books and online to see where they stuck them through the years.

Nimitz class carriers have, I think, 4, phalanx launchers mounted, 2 forward and 2 aft. I know there's been a push to put the RAM (rolling airframe missile) launcher in some of the same sponsoons. The RAM's are able to intercept cruise missiles as well, just further away.

I can see the use of VLS especially since there appear to be a minimum of moving parts to break, but from the video clips I've seen I'm a bit nervous about the ones showing flames flickering out of the tube. Of course being a retired submarine sailor I'm not very happy seeing any hint of a fire onboard any ship or structure. Fire is on the same level of water inside the people tank, a.k.a. pressure hull.

IIRC the phalanx in theory is supposed to be able to knock out cruise missiles too and I agree with anything that knocks out threats as far away from a ship, especially one I was on, is something to push.

I can see the use of VLS especially since there appear to be a minimum of moving parts to break, but from the video clips I've seen I'm a bit nervous about the ones showing flames flickering out of the tube. Of course being a retired submarine sailor I'm not very happy seeing any hint of a fire onboard any ship or structure. Fire is on the same level of water inside the people tank, a.k.a. pressure hull.

IIRC the phalanx in theory is supposed to be able to knock out cruise missiles too and I agree with anything that knocks out threats as far away from a ship, especially one I was on, is something to push.

That's actually by design. The rocket exhaust needs to be vented away from the missile so it doesn't damage it. A launcher in space could, if you wanted, physically eject the missile. The single rail launchers on the old OHP class had the ability to 'toss' dud or activated but unfired missiles over the side via a very strong spring. You could also use gas in a space launcher, though I would think that it might be better in the long run to use a mechanical mechanism (assuming you don't want it to activate in the launcher like VLS does today) since you wouldn't need to store inert gas in the launch area.

SSBN's eject missiles using gas, then again they have to factor in buoyancy, so a fluidic environment is slightly different than a vacuum one.

The USN is also fielding a merged Phalanx / RAM launcher called SeaRAM - which has a 21 round RAM launcher combined with a CIWS gun system. I believe they are eventually supposed to replace all individual CIWS and RAM launchers in the fleet.

I can see the use of VLS especially since there appear to be a minimum of moving parts to break, but from the video clips I've seen I'm a bit nervous about the ones showing flames flickering out of the tube. Of course being a retired submarine sailor I'm not very happy seeing any hint of a fire onboard any ship or structure. Fire is on the same level of water inside the people tank, a.k.a. pressure hull.

IIRC the phalanx in theory is supposed to be able to knock out cruise missiles too and I agree with anything that knocks out threats as far away from a ship, especially one I was on, is something to push.

That's actually by design. The rocket exhaust needs to be vented away from the missile so it doesn't damage it. A launcher in space could, if you wanted, physically eject the missile. The single rail launchers on the old OHP class had the ability to 'toss' dud or activated but unfired missiles over the side via a very strong spring. You could also use gas in a space launcher, though I would think that it might be better in the long run to use a mechanical mechanism (assuming you don't want it to activate in the launcher like VLS does today) since you wouldn't need to store inert gas in the launch area.

SSBN's eject missiles using gas, then again they have to factor in buoyancy, so a fluidic environment is slightly different than a vacuum one.

The USN is also fielding a merged Phalanx / RAM launcher called SeaRAM - which has a 21 round RAM launcher combined with a CIWS gun system. I believe they are eventually supposed to replace all individual CIWS and RAM launchers in the fleet.

Seeing fire flicking out of the launcher after the missile is gone still makes me uneasy regardless of being by design.

One of the best memories I have of my duty on SSBNs was actually launching two dummy ICBMs while submerged. Being on watch in the SONAR shack there was a depth gauge so that we could put that information on tape. During the launches the gauge changed when the first missile left and in less than a minute was back on depth before the second one was ejected repeating the bobbing process. The other event was on SSN 591 when we did a live fire of a Mk 48 to verify that at least one actually went boom .

Looks like the new system is something that the surface fleet can keep hostile ordnance from doing damage is going to get my vote.

I'm ex-MLRS. We just heard sonic booms from the cab and lots of smoke. On the outside you saw a bright flash, lots of smoke and a smoky fire zipping away from the launcher. The rockets were pretty much going supersonic before all of it left the tube.

I'm ex-MLRS. We just heard sonic booms from the cab and lots of smoke. On the outside you saw a bright flash, lots of smoke and a smoky fire zipping away from the launcher. The rockets were pretty much going supersonic before all of it left the tube.

Fun to fire, never fun to clean up the mess afterwards though.

There was some noise with the launch of the missiles and of course the high pitched whine of the Mk 48's propulsion system followed by the detonation of the warhead. The security escorts got great pictures of the missile breaching the surface and lighting of the motors.

For the missiles the missilers had to clean up the tubes and the torpedomen had to clean up the torpedo tubes. Being a ping jockey I missed the clean-up.

Hopefully this will get seen amidst our little diversion into real-world naval technology.

Looking at the Light Submersible chassis on page 22 one of the options is Supercavitating Drive. A light submersible is limited to spaces 1-20. Yet under supercavitating drive it says "Supercavitating drives consume a percentage of the total number of spaces the submersible has, as shown on the Supercavitating Drive table (minimum 10 spaces)." The highest amount you could possibly get from the table is 40% (i.e. 8 spaces in a 20 space submersible).

If the minimum is 10 spaces then isn't the drive table completely superfluous? You're always going to use 10 spaces if you take supercavitating drive no matter what size light submersible and it will always cost MCr2 at TL-8-9; MCr1 at TL10-11; Cr500,000 at TL12-13 and Cr250,000 at TL14+.

Hopefully this will get seen amidst our little diversion into real-world naval technology.

Looking at the Light Submersible chassis on page 22 one of the options is Supercavitating Drive. A light submersible is limited to spaces 1-20. Yet under supercavitating drive it says "Supercavitating drives consume a percentage of the total number of spaces the submersible has, as shown on the Supercavitating Drive table (minimum 10 spaces)." The highest amount you could possibly get from the table is 40% (i.e. 8 spaces in a 20 space submersible).

If the minimum is 10 spaces then isn't the drive table completely superfluous? You're always going to use 10 spaces if you take supercavitating drive no matter what size light submersible and it will always cost MCr2 at TL-8-9; MCr1 at TL10-11; Cr500,000 at TL12-13 and Cr250,000 at TL14+.

What am I missing?

Oops, sorry about hijacking the thread.

Thank you for bring this up and getting my focus returned to the VHB 2e(?).

My guess is that they built a master Submersible page probably the heavy version and then made edits to create a the light version.

Comparing the two submersibles the difference is cost. A light sub is Cr50,000 per space and the heavy is Cr100,000. My solution will probably be altering the light sub's minimum from 10 to 5 spaces for the Supercavitating Drive and include the change as part of the Description. Hopefully by the inclusion and that I followed the instructions others will be able to recreate the design without a problem. I ran through the design example and was successful in coming up with the same numbers as shown on the vehicle's record sheet. I admit to being surprised since my past efforts have frequently not matched tons and/or cost.

Based on my background in real world technology the Supercavitating Drive is something that I find very hard to suspend belief because cavitation gives notice a sub is in the area and if the hull is surrounded by a bubble how are the underwater sensors gathering information so the operator can avoid running into something.

Hopefully, Mr. Sprange or other staff member will get back to us for clarification.

Rail Rider
A Light Ground Vehicle can be designed to run on a rail network, either in addition to its normal travel or instead of. This consumes no Spaces unless the vehicle is designed to run off rails as well, in which case it consumes 1 Space.

Agility: -2 while on rails
Cost per Space: +Cr400
Tech Table: Increase Speed by one band while on rails.

How can the Rail Rider not consume space when it increases the vehicle's Cost per Space by +Cr400?

I have additional questions about VHB Armor/Armour that has probably been discussed and I've failed to find the topic thread.

1. In an earlier post concerning the design example for the Honey Badger the Armor/Armour Protection value of 8 is distributed by the designer as Front: 10; Rear: 6; and Sides 8. I'll still not sure how the value of 8 went to 24 but my guess at the time is the value was multiplied by 3.

Have I understood how 8 became 24?
Does the Sides: 8 mean that each side has a value of 4 or 8?

2. Top and bottom Armor/Armour Locations and Allocation

VHB 2e Armor/Armour Location p. 34
"The Protection armour provides a vehicle is used for any attacks that come from the front, sides or rear (see Traveller Core Rulebook page 134). A vehicle that is attacked from the top or bottom (such as an attack launched from a rooftop or the vehicle travelling over a mine) has its Protection halved, rounding down."

CRB 2e p. 134 Vehicle Armour
"Even on dedicated military vehicles, the roof and floor tend to be weak points in their structure that a canny enemy can exploit. Unless otherwise stated, all vehicles will use half the value of their side armour against attacks on the roof, and half the value of their rear armour against attacks on the floor.

VHB 2e Armor/Armour Allocation p. 35
If a vehicle has no separate top or bottom armour listed in its description, assume they are equal to the value of the side facing.

There appears to be three different ways to determine Protection for a vehicle's top and bottom armor.

The allocation for top/bottom armor/armour referenced in the CRB indicates that the top armor/armour is half the value of the side armor and the bottom is half the value of the rear armor.

The value for the top or bottom armor in the second sentence indicates the the value is half the Protection Value or 8 x 0.5 = 4?

The value for the top and bottom armor/armour from VHB 35 indicates the the value is half the Side Protection Value or 8 x 0.5 = 4 or if each side has a value of 4 the top/bottom appears to be 4 x 0.5 = 2.

Which of the sources are used to determine the vehicle's top and bottom Armor/Armour specifications?

Yippee, I'm finally on the right track with at least one bit of the design process. Please note that I was working on the armor/armour question when you provided the positive feedback on how to calculate the cost of adding the Rail Rider to a wheeled/tracked vehicle.

My review of the VHB PDF did not find the same Primitive and Advanced Technology chapter that is used by HG.

Further, I admit not having thought about the HG rules being applied to the VHB and have not made any adjustments to TL for any condition.

However, based on how the HG 2e Primitive and Advanced options on the Prototype/Advanced Table and the advantages/disadvantages associated with specific components altered the TL I think that some of the options in the customization/customisation chapter may also alter a vehicle's TL. The guess is based on some of the replies made to question made on the forum rather than clearly explained in the source book and of course my understanding may, probably is out to lunch.

Each vehicle type has an associated Tech Table that defines its speed and range. On VHB p. 46 selecting the Performance Speed Customization increases or decreases a vehicle's speed band. A TL 5 heavy hovercraft's speed band is Slow using the performance customization of speed the vehicle's speed is increased by 1 band the vehicle could be considered a TL 6/7 design, while decreasing the speed band by one would change the TL from 5 to 4.

Hopefully, one of the authors, editors, or other Mongoose staff can provide an clarifying bit of information.